Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

[I do not want to start a flame war]

Why did you decide the KFF was a 4+ cover giver to vehicles for the INAT?

In the current Rulebook, a vehicle cannot gain a cover save without being obscured. In fact the instant you receive the obscured status the vehicle must be treated like a wound-model for deciding what kind of cover it receives. Now, this poses a real problem, what about powers like Shield of Sanguinus and Storm Caller (BA and SW 5+ Psychic/Wargear Powers) which don't actually obscure vehicles? Well the BA version was clarified in the FAQ that yes Vehicles can claim a cover save from the Shield of Sanguinus but the SW doesn't actually let you take this save on vehicles. This is GW contradicting their own rule, or Matt Ward forgetting to let say write in the rules for shield of Sanguinus with a seperate sentence stating "Vehicles are counted as obscured".

What am I getting at?

Vehicles can only receive a cover save when obscured and when obscured the vehicle's cover save value is treated like a wound-model. An Ork Boy only get a 5+ Cover save from a KFF and he is a wound-model, so why does the KFF treat the vehicle any differently since the rulebook tells you to treat the cover value of a vehicle like it was a wound-model.

Now People cling on the second paragraph of that rule which explain that vehicles obscured by wargear can receive a cover save even if in the open and if the rule (Doesn't say sentence) does not mention a specific value than it is a 4+.

But unfortunately the KFF Rule (the whole rule, not a specific sentence) states that the cover it provides is a 5+ to all units within 6".

Ever since 5th Edition came out a series of Codex have been release with wargear/powers that grant units cover on a permanent basis but none have ever been better than typical area terrain or smoke launchers

SM - Force Bubble - 5+ Invul for Librarian and his attached squad.
IG - None
SW - Storm Called - 5+ Cover save for all units within 6"
Tyranids - Venomthropes - 5+ Cover save for all units within 6"
BA - Shield of Sanguinus - 5+ Cover save for all units within 6"
Dark Eldar - Flickerfields - 5+ Invulnerable for Vehicles

While Cover/Invul have different dynamic for vehicles, the trend states that GW wants people to maximize on terrain usage for their vehicles or sink points into 1/3 Anti Tank denial perma ability.

I understand that when the INAT decision was made, very few 5th edition codexes were out and for the sake of argument 4+ was adopted but it contradicts the rulebook as well as the current trend in codexes.

Closing Thought: The KFF rules does not contradict the rules for vehicle cover in the rulebook but actually works well with it. Am I to understand that the only argument for a 4+ cover save for vehicles on a KFF is because there is a comma between 2 sentences written under the same rule?

Wouldn't it be becouse KFF says it makes vehicle obscured. So +4 Cover Save.

Noir wrote:Wouldn't it be becouse KFF says it makes vehicle obscured. So +4 Cover Save.

QFT. End of discussion.

Noir wrote:Wouldn't it be becouse KFF says it makes vehicle obscured. So +4 Cover Save.

Actually an obscured save from a power or wargear in the open is only a 4+ if the rule or codex does not state another value such as Tau Disruption Pods. The KFF within the description of the rule assigns a 5+ cover save to all units (which vehicles are) but to be able for a vehicle to take a cover save it needs to be obscurred which explains the secoond line of the KFF rule. The Shield of Sanguinus is the only power to grant a cover save to vehicle without being obscurred as a result of the BA FAQ.

Vehicles which are obscured are treated for the purpose of cover saves exactly like wound-models in determining the cover save value and the KFF assigns a clear cut 5+ across the board, what warrants a 4+ save to a vehicle? which is treated for its cover value exactly like an ork boy. By the logic of giving a 4+ to a vehicle, the same argument could be made that since in the rulebook cover save value for vehicles and infantry are treated the same that if your vehicles gets a 4+ from a pieces of wargear or power than the infantry should also.

But the KFF does not treat vehicles or infantry differently, it treats them equally with a 5+. As mentioned earlier a vehicle cannot take a cover save unless it is obscured (Unless you are a Shield of Sanguinus User). I

I just went though and checked the rulebook for obscured, and checked the Ork codex, and I have come to the conclusion that unfortunately MikhailLenin is correct. I think most of us Ork players conveniently misunderstood the wording for this rule.

Howdy,

While your argument certainly has merit, there are a few important things to note.

Just for reference here's the important parts of the KFF rule:

A kustom force field gives all unit within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

The Ork codex was written in 4th edition when vehicles could not get cover saves so there was absolutely no question as to whether or not the 5+ cover save applied to vehicles (it didn't), and the term 'obscured' meant that a vehicle could downgrade a penetrating hit to a glancing hit on a roll of '4+'.

GW also had an appalling tendency back in 3rd edition to sometimes say 'units' when referring to 'non-vehicle units' and then refer to 'Vehicles' as if they weren't units. And although 4th edition clearly defined vehicles as being 'units' this still didn't stop GW from sometimes forgetting to write their rules that way. So although the KFF rule wasn't technically correct back then it was at least clear: since vehicles didn't take cover saves you obviously had two rules there...one for non-vehicle units (5+ save) and one for vehicle units (obscured, which downgraded penetrating to glancing hits on a 4+).

With that fact in mind, trying to now claim in retrospect that the 2nd sentence of the KFF rule I quoted above is somehow now an explanation to allow the KFF's cover saves to work on vehicles is simply false. It was written that way because at the time vehicles couldn't get cover saves and being 'obscured' meant something totally different.


The other claim you make that I take umbrage with is the idea that a vehicle MUST be obscured to get a cover save. While it is totally true that a vehicle must normally be obscured to get a cover save, there in nothing in the rules saying that if a vehicle is able to gain a cover save via a special rule (for example) that it wouldn't be able to take it...which is precisely why GW ruled the way they did for the Shield of Sanguinius (because its the correct way to rule). But I won't go fully into that particular argument here...if you want to read more of that you can read this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/333544.page


Finally, and most importantly, the goal of the INAT is to rule the way most people naturally play the rules the way they read them. Right or wrong, I guarantee you that the vast majority of players read the rules for the KFF and come to the conclusion that it provides vehicles a 4+ cover save for being obscured, so that's the way the INAT needs to rule in order to cause the least amount of upheaval at a tournament.

If you think I'm wrong about this last point (which I could be despite what my gaming experiences have shown me) then feel free to start a poll on the matter using the 'YMTC' format I've done for many other rules polls:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/YMTC_-_How_YOU_Play_the_Game_of_40k

Please just make sure to take extra care that you make the question and answers unbiased (just post the rules in question and then give the possible answers how people can play without inserting how you think it should be).


Oh, and thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it!

OK one more time. While the KFF gives all unit within 6in a +5 Cover Save, it also gives vechicle the obscured "stat". Obscured vehicles get a +4 Cover Save. What is hard to understand.

Read above. Vechicle become obsucured, not any other unit this is the important part. See how the KFF treats vehicles ands infantry differently.

Yakface wrote:The Ork codex was written in 4th edition when vehicles could not get cover saves so there was absolutely no question as to whether or not the 5+ cover save applied to vehicles (it didn't), and the term 'obscured' meant that a vehicle could downgrade a penetrating hit to a glancing hit on a roll of '4+'.

GW also had an appalling tendency back in 3rd edition to sometimes say 'units' when referring to 'non-vehicle units' and then refer to 'Vehicles' as if they weren't units. And although 4th edition clearly defined vehicles as being 'units' this still didn't stop GW from sometimes forgetting to write their rules that way. So although the KFF rule wasn't technically correct back then it was at least clear: since vehicles didn't take cover saves you obviously had two rules there...one for non-vehicle units (5+ save) and one for vehicle units (obscured, which downgraded penetrating to glancing hits on a 4+).

With that fact in mind, trying to now claim in retrospect that the 2nd sentence of the KFF rule I quoted above is somehow now an explanation to allow the KFF's cover saves to work on vehicles is simply false. It was written that way because at the time vehicles couldn't get cover saves and being 'obscured' meant something totally different.

If the obscured status is unnecessary in your opinion than why still apply the second sentence of the KFF to the cover save of the vehicle. My argument against this and perhaps in support also is the SW FAQ (Another Codex written by Phil Kelly for 5th) where Storm Caller was corrected to affect not squads but units, an example in your support of the GW fallacy at times. But they never answer if Storm Caller was applicable to vehicles, following the rules for Vehicle Cover save, for a Vehicle to claim a Cover Save it must be obscured (which is then further supported by the fact that smoke launcher provide both a 4+ cover and obscurement). If this is intentional on the correction of Storm Caller than it is also intended for it to not work on Vehicles. If personally you feel that obscurement is not required than I see no reason to apply the second section of the KFF rule as it is a relic of previous edition. But if you would like to use the second part of the KFF the rulebook works really well with it and you would still end up with a 5 + cover save.

Yakface wrote:The other claim you make that I take umbrage with is the idea that a vehicle MUST be obscured to get a cover save. While it is totally true that a vehicle must normally be obscured to get a cover save, there in nothing in the rules saying that if a vehicle is able to gain a cover save via a special rule (for example) that it wouldn't be able to take it...which is precisely why GW ruled the way they did for the Shield of Sanguinius (because its the correct way to rule). But I won't go fully into that particular argument here...if you want to read more of that you can read this thread:

I feel this was a huge mistake on both GW and Matt Ward, He could have easily added a sentence like the KFF in the Shield of Sanguinus rule but he didn't and instead of GW giving a proper rulebook backed argument why it worked with vehicles they chose to just say Yes. This Yes could be very well be intentional to say "Yes, vehicles are obscured" as much as "Yes, vehicles can claim cover saves without being obscured".


Thanks a lot for the Responce Yakface. I wanted to hear a great reasoning why the INAT FAQ chose this interpretation and if perhaps is willing to compromise in the future to change this if arguments are valid. It is hard to change people's understanding of something when people are prone to loss aversion.

MikhailLenin wrote:

If the obscured status is unnecessary in your opinion than why still apply the second sentence of the KFF to the cover save of the vehicle. My argument against this and perhaps in support also is the SW FAQ (Another Codex written by Phil Kelly for 5th) where Storm Caller was corrected to affect not squads but units, an example in your support of the GW fallacy at times. But they never answer if Storm Caller was applicable to vehicles, following the rules for Vehicle Cover save, for a Vehicle to claim a Cover Save it must be obscured (which is then further supported by the fact that smoke launcher provide both a 4+ cover and obscurement). If this is intentional on the correction of Storm Caller than it is also intended for it to not work on Vehicles. If personally you feel that obscurement is not required than I see no reason to apply the second section of the KFF rule as it is a relic of previous edition. But if you would like to use the second part of the KFF the rulebook works really well with it and you would still end up with a 5 + cover save.

Again, I don't want to go into it (you can read my full argument in that other thread), but there is no rule in the rulebook saying that vehicles that are not obscured cannot take cover saves. Its just that normally the permission for a vehicle to take a cover save requires the vehicle to be obscured. There's a big difference between the two concepts. The first concept is that the obscured rule is a 'restriction' (which it isn't in the rulebook) and the second concept is that it is the 'permission' for a vehicle to take a cover save (which is actually how it is presented in the rules).

So if a vehicle gains permission to a cover save via another method (like a psychic power or special rule) then it has the cover save and may utilize it. This exact position is backed up by GW's ruling on Shield of Sanguinius and also definitely applies to Storm Caller as well IMHO.

Therefore, if you want to break the KFF rules down to their core 'RAW' components, then it does two things:

1) It provides a 5+ save to all units (including vehicles) within 6".
2) It provides obscurement to vehicles within 6" (a 4+ save per the rulebook).

So technically vehicles can typically gain both types of saves from a KFF, with the better being the 4+.


Of course, this isn't the ruling in the INAT because we have found that most people do not play that way. Most people play that the vehicle gets a 4+ save and non-vehicle units get the 5+ cover save, so that's always going to be the most important reason to rule that way for a tournament FAQ.

Thanks a lot for the Responce Yakface. I wanted to hear a great reasoning why the INAT FAQ chose this interpretation and if perhaps is willing to compromise in the future to change this if arguments are valid. It is hard to change people's understanding of something when people are prone to loss aversion.

We definitely take good feedback and have reversed many, many big decisions later because of that. The #1 reason we would probably consider changing this rule would be if you posted an impartial poll here on Dakka and the results showed overwhelmingly that our ruling didn't match how people play it. But I feel really safe in saying that wouldn't be the case if we ran the poll (but I could be wrong!).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oh, FYI:

If you ever want to bring up other points, or ask questions about an INAT ruling, posting in the main INAT thread stickied at the top of the news & rumors forum is a much better way to ensure that I'll see it.

And I intend to vote on that Poll when it props back up. I am reading that other thread. Thanks for your time, I do agree that the restriction and permission are not quite clear but for me the KFF has been pretty clear. I feel sometimes the only reason I have this argument at the table with someone is because there is 2 Sentence instead of looking at the rule as a whole. If there was no dot between both sentence in the KFF there would be no disagreement and last time I had a grammar argument over a rule was over if the Klavex of an Incubi benefited of 2 Special CCW with Demi-Klaive and that was entirely due to grammar argument.

It is also, possibly, because when 5th ed was released the studio stated that now the KFF gives vehicles a 4+ cover save.

The special rule does *not* state what value cover save is applied to the "obscured" part. The two sentences are entirely separate, and therefore the rules state that a "value" for "obscured" has NOT been given, and so it defaults to a 4+ as it is from a special rule or wargear.

There is a very, very long thread where this was debated to be 5+ or 4+, but it boils down to the above: no save is specified for obscured. While a vehicle is a unit and *also* receives a 5+ cover save, no save is specified for "obscured" and so it MUSt be a 4+ cover save.

I will point out I disagree with Yak on permission to USE non-obscured cover saves. The requirement is "IF OBSCURED a vehicle may take a cover save..." and then goes on to describe HOW you take a cover save when you are a vehicle (substituting wounds for hits) - if you are not obscured you never get permission to read any of this section, as you are not obscured, so you have no permission to know how to use cover saves when a vehicle.

For example you treat penetrating and glancing hits equally, yet you can only do so if you are obscured - if you are not obscured you dont know that they are equal, so you dont know to do a 1 for 1 "swap" on saves.

Noir wrote:OK one more time. While the KFF gives all unit within 6in a +5 Cover Save, it also gives vechicle the obscured "stat". Obscured vehicles get a +4 Cover Save. What is hard to understand.

Read above. Vechicle become obsucured, not any other unit this is the important part. See how the KFF treats vehicles ands infantry differently.

If you were firing at the front facing of a vehicle that was 50% obscured by tall grass (6+ cover save to infantry), what "obscured" save would the vehicle receive?

I do feel people fail to understand that an obscured status does not grant you a 4+ save for vehicles, it grants you a save based on the value a wound-model receives from the same piece of terrain or wargear or power. It is only a 4+ in the open from a power or wargear if the save value is not listed anywhere in the rule or codex.

Edit: I would also like to point out that a Skimmer that moves Flat out receives an obscured status, not just a 4+ cover save. The 4+ value is listed in parentheses after listing the vehicle obscured status. Which is not necessary to state as a vehicle obscured in the open would receive a 4+ but lets say the skimmer move flat out and landed in tall grass but was not obscured from the tall grass but obscured from its movement with no value listed would only receive a tall grass save. The reasoning behind listing the save within that own description is for circumstance such as these. While the obscurement and save value are not seperated by 2 sentence they are still explained in the whole rule not just sentences individually.

MikhailLenin wrote: It is only a 4+ in the open from a power or wargear if the save value is not listed anywhere in the rule or codex.

...just like the kff.
"Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." Period. No save for the obscurement is ever specifically defined. No other part of the rule is referenced. That's all there is to this part of the rule, a granting of obscurement in the open with no specified save.
And the BRB rules state:
"If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open (which the kff does)... this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise..."
Nowhere is "the ability of being obscured even in the open" specifically redefined as anything other than the standard 4+ in the kff rule. It's that simple.

As an example of how the rule would have to be written to work as you claim, just look at the smoke launchers rule on the same page: "count as obscured... receiving a 4+ save".
Or the flat out skimmer rules: "counts as obscured (cover save of 4+)"
Both clearly and specifically define a save for the obscurement effect. The kff does not.

Edit: I would also like to point out that a Skimmer that moves Flat out receives an obscured status, not just a 4+ cover save. The 4+ value is listed in parentheses after listing the vehicle obscured status. Which is not necessary to state as a vehicle obscured in the open would receive a 4+ but lets say the skimmer move flat out and landed in tall grass but was not obscured from the tall grass but obscured from its movement with no value listed would only receive a tall grass save. The reasoning behind listing the save within that own description is for circumstance such as these. While the obscurement and save value are not seperated by 2 sentence they are still explained in the whole rule not just sentences individually.

I don't know... I'm pretty sure that every similar rule in the rulebook specifically listing the save granted by any special obscurement is a clear argument against your case that the kff is specified (just unclearly), not the other way around.

Do we really have to go out and drag in all the supporting evidence (the wd battle report by the codex author, the 5th ed prep sheet, the fact that everyone everywhere in every official tournament plays it 4+ and has for years without GW correcting it, etc.) that it's intended to be a 4+ save for this argument again?

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." Period. No save for the obscurement is ever specifically defined. No other part of the rule is referenced. That's all there is to this part of the rule, a granting of obscurement in the open with no specified save.

The rulebook does not say you have to look at the sentence for a specific cover value but the whole rule or codex. The KFF rule has a cover save value stated in the sentence before. Your argument chooses to ignore not only the first part of the KFF rule when it comes to every unit (excluding vehicles) but also the second part of the paragraph section of the Wargear/Power portion of the rulebook which states that if any value is stated anywhere in the codex or rule than that is the cover value. This does not mean stop at the end of the sentence, the rulebook rule is all encompassing demanding you look at the whole codex for a cover save value given to vehicles which are obscured by the wargear/power. Since the KFF grants a 5+ to all units (including vehicles) in the line before that second sentence and the rulebook demands that you look through the whole codex not just that sentence. Your argument chooses to ignore that small detail.

Gorkamorka wrote:
I don't know... I'm pretty sure that every similar rule in the rulebook specifically listing the save granted by any special obscurement is a clear argument against your case that the kff is specified (just unclearly), not the other way around.

Do we really have to go out and drag in all the supporting evidence (the wd battle report by the codex author, the 5th ed prep sheet, the fact that everyone everywhere in every official tournament plays it 4+ and has for years without GW correcting it, etc.) that it's intended to be a 4+ save for this argument again because people want to insist on adding these unwritten connections to a simple, working sentence in the raw?

The WD battle report by the codex author never actually gives out a cover save value in the report. The 5th Ed prep sheet only talks about Killa Kans not vehicles as a whole and is written by the marketing team not the rules team. GW seldom dictates how tournament organizers chooses to run their tournament, they also seldom faq rules that have great discussion over the internet or local gamestore.

The fact that the KFF with both sentences separate works well within the Rulebook and the fact that my argument is valid as well as your argument can be called valid by others even though I feel that your argument chooses to ignore some details entirely of the rulebook from a specific rule covered in the rulebook. If there is a dispute over cover, just apply a -1. I choose this medium to argue this rule because I do not intend to argue this in a game or tournament but I still feel the KFF is played wrong by the majority of the Ork players because they have settled into a 4+ mentality without really looking at the rules because a marketing prop sheet told them otherwise (that sheet also told players that necrons would be an assault force due to running rules). The greatest blunder was the fact that the BA FAQ chooses to just say yes to the shield of sanguinus without giving a rulebook case or support. This Yes could easily mean: "Yes, because vehicles are obscured" as much as "Yes, because vehicles with cover save do not need to be obscured to use them". It really depends on which side of the argument you are. But currently as RAW is written, only vehicles with obscurement can use cover saves exactly like a wound-model. The Shield of Sanguinus clarification could exactly mean that Yes Vehicles are obscured and works well within RAW. If they intended to mean that the Shield of Sanguinus just gave a cover save value and vehicles can take cover without obscurement than the second sentence of the KFF rule is an old obsolete rule from before 5th edition rendering the first line of the KFF as the only line you would need. But if you choose to state that obscurement is needed, than your save is still a 5+ because of how the KFF and Rulebook interact if you do not willingly choose to ignore some details of the rule.

But currently as RAW is written, only vehicles with obscurement can use cover saves exactly like a wound-model.

No. The USUAL way a vehicle gets a cover save is to be obscured. Not the only way.

Mannahnin wrote:

But currently as RAW is written, only vehicles with obscurement can use cover saves exactly like a wound-model.

No. The USUAL way a vehicle gets a cover save is to be obscured. Not the only way.

Looking at Smoke Launchers, Skimmers moving flat out seems to be consistent that obscurement is a requirement. Where that falls short is when you deal with Powers such as Storm Caller and Shield of Sanguinus, which assign a cover save to a vehicle but do not give it obscurement. Thus far only Shield allows you to roll a cover save for a vehicle. A vehicle in area terrain has a cover save value of that terrain piece like wound-models but is not eligible to roll that save unless it meets the obscurement requirement.

Technically a vehicle can have a cover save without being obscured, but can't actually use the cover save as the vehicle never takes wounds. In order to actually be able to roll a save against a glancing or penetrating hit, the vehicle needs to be obscured.

The rulebook makes clear that vehicles may take cover saves. The most common way, but certainly not listed as the only way, is for them to be Obscured.

The fact that Shield of Sanguinius and Storm Caller work makes clear that powers and wargear can in fact grant cover saves to vehicles other than by granting the Obscured status.

willydstyle wrote:Technically a vehicle can have a cover save without being obscured, but can't actually use the cover save as the vehicle never takes wounds.

But in actual practice that argument is useless in a game, as it flies in the face of Shield, Storm, and Flickerfields. Bjorn's rules also are illustrative.

Mikhailenin; you are like 98% correct. Obscured = cover save; the value of the coversave is generally the same value that non-vehicle models would get. This is all 100% true. But then you have the next paragraph: "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

The KFF does not specify any cover save for the obscured vehicle; it does specify the cover save for non-vehicle units, but then goes on to offer an un-specified "obscured" status to vehicles. This means that the Vehicles get a 4+ due to the above quote.

I get a very "I only lost my last tournament due to a wargear piece I thought was cheeze, but the judge called it ok" vibe from this whole thread. Personally I play it as a +4 cover save for vehicles. If I am playing a friendly game I can just discuss the rule before the game. If the player thinks thats not fair to his 10 razorback line, then I say good day and dont bother playing. If I played at a lfgs tourney, I wouldnt bother entering unless I had clarified the rule beforehand with the judge. And in an actual gw torunament it wouldnt matter, as it has been ruled on before that it is a +4 save. And frankly just in the last 2 editions alone I have seen far, far worse things to argue and complain about. Eldar grav cheeze and double lash prince jump immediatley to mind.

willydstyle wrote:

If you were firing at the front facing of a vehicle that was 50% obscured by tall grass (6+ cover save to infantry), what "obscured" save would the vehicle receive?

6+ as per raw, page 62 "(for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on)."

Mannahnin wrote:The rulebook makes clear that vehicles may take cover saves. The most common way, but certainly not listed as the only way, is for them to be Obscured.

The fact that Shield of Sanguinius and Storm Caller work makes clear that powers and wargear can in fact grant cover saves to vehicles other than by granting the Obscured status.

But in actual practice that argument is useless in a game, as it flies in the face of Shield, Storm, and Flickerfields. Bjorn's rules also are illustrative.

I would like to see the page in the Rulebook that says a non-obscured vehicle is able to take a cover save because if that is what you are telling me than vehicles in Area Terrain with non Obscurity could take cover saves (Which they cannot because of the first bullet point of Vehicle Cover). The only said instance is Shield of Sanguinus because of the FAQ, Stormcaller as far as I know does not say that unless you can pinpoint a page in the rulebook that explains vehicles without obscured status can take cover saves.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Mikhailenin; you are like 98% correct. Obscured = cover save; the value of the coversave is generally the same value that non-vehicle models would get. This is all 100% true. But then you have the next paragraph: "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

The KFF does not specify any cover save for the obscured vehicle; it does specify the cover save for non-vehicle units, but then goes on to offer an un-specified "obscured" status to vehicles. This means that the Vehicles get a 4+ due to the above quote.

" this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex" The fact that this line exist is all the evidence that the KFF is not a 4+ but a 5+. As you have yourself stated a vehicle can only claim a cover value equal to a non-vehicle unit which receives or is in the same cover. Than the paragraph as you have quoted states specifically to look into the Codex, not the sentence, the whole Codex. Under the Codex, specifically the KFF rule, states that it gives all units within 6" a 5+ cover save. Followed by stating that vehicles are obscured. Once you look into the rulebook for an explanation, you find this paragraph you have quoted. The paragraph does not state "unless specified otherwise", it states "unless specified otherwise in the codex" which an all encompassing umbrella that requires the player to forgive the narrowness of grammar and contemplate the whole picture.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Mikhailenin; you are like 98% correct. Obscured = cover save; the value of the coversave is generally the same value that non-vehicle models would get. This is all 100% true. But then you have the next paragraph: "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

The KFF does not specify any cover save for the obscured vehicle; it does specify the cover save for non-vehicle units, but then goes on to offer an un-specified "obscured" status to vehicles. This means that the Vehicles get a 4+ due to the above quote.

The rule says units I do believe, which includes vehicles. Obscured says cover save 4+ when no value is provided. The rule says all units get a 5+ cover save.

Am I missing something? This seems really simple.

silveralen wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Mikhailenin; you are like 98% correct. Obscured = cover save; the value of the coversave is generally the same value that non-vehicle models would get. This is all 100% true. But then you have the next paragraph: "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

The KFF does not specify any cover save for the obscured vehicle; it does specify the cover save for non-vehicle units, but then goes on to offer an un-specified "obscured" status to vehicles. This means that the Vehicles get a 4+ due to the above quote.

The rule says units I do believe, which includes vehicles. Obscured says cover save 4+ when no value is provided. The rule says all units get a 5+ cover save.

Am I missing something? This seems really simple.

Simply putting it, thats why I am saying by trying to eloquently explaining the rules which are in question.

silveralen wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Mikhailenin; you are like 98% correct. Obscured = cover save; the value of the coversave is generally the same value that non-vehicle models would get. This is all 100% true. But then you have the next paragraph: "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

The KFF does not specify any cover save for the obscured vehicle; it does specify the cover save for non-vehicle units, but then goes on to offer an un-specified "obscured" status to vehicles. This means that the Vehicles get a 4+ due to the above quote.

The rule says units I do believe, which includes vehicles. Obscured says cover save 4+ when no value is provided. The rule says all units get a 5+ cover save.

Am I missing something? This seems really simple.

The rule says all units get a 5+ cover save. The rule says all vehicles are obscured.

The rule does not say all vehicles are obscured and specify that the save from this effect is also a 5+ save, or that it uses the save from the other unconnected function of the wargear. It simply says that vehicles are obscured, which defaults to a 4+ save, and also receive a 5+ save from the previous line. That is what the rules say.

It really is simple. You can't show that the rule specifies that the obscured effect uses the other save (because it doesn't), so it uses the default. The end.

Gorkamorka wrote:
The rule says all units get a 5+ cover save. The rule says all vehicles are obscured.

The rule does not say all vehicles are obscured and specify that the save from this effect is also a 5+ save, or that it uses the save from the other unconnected function of the wargear. It simply says that vehicles are obscured, which defaults to a 4+ save, and also receive a 5+ save from the previous line. That is what the rules say.

It really is simple. You can't show that the rule specifies that the obscured effect uses the other save (because it doesn't), so it uses the default. The end.

Except you still fail to follow the rule for the KFF in the rulebook "this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex" which that other specified cover saveis stated in the codex, not sentence, as a different cover save value than a 4+.

Gorkamorka wrote pretty much exactly what I would have.

Cannot quote the codex because that would require posting the exact rules. So I will say this: the KFF granting a 5+ cover save to all units in range is a separate sentence from the Vehicles gain the obscured status. The Obscured status is undefined(although the vehicle being a "Unit" within range also gains a 5+ cover save in addition to the default obscured status 4+ cover save).

Kel, you are free to quote the relevant text. We just don't allow posting big sections of codices, or comprehensive points values, because we don't want people using the site as a substitute for owning a codex.

MikhailLenin wrote:I would like to see the page in the Rulebook that says a non-obscured vehicle is able to take a cover save because if that is what you are telling me than vehicles in Area Terrain with non Obscurity could take cover saves (Which they cannot because of the first bullet point of Vehicle Cover).

Not at all. By the argument you're trying to make, a non-vehicle unit can't get a cover save from a special power or wargear either, since the Cover Saves rules on page 21 don't explicitly tell you that they can. That's not the way it works.

The main rulebook tells you how cover saves work. On pages 21-23 it tells you how MOST units use terrain and other units to get cover saves. It never says that they can get cover saves in any other way. But that doesn't mean that Conceal, Storm Caller, Shield of Sanguinius, Ork Warbikes dust clouds or Kustom Force Fields are meaningless. It means they themselves grant permission for the model to take a cover save, by granting said cover save. On page 62 it lays out some additional rules, and tells you they are "exceptions to the normal rules for cover", but again, these are limitations on the "normal rules for cover". They have no bearing on special powers or wargear. Just as with infantry, the wargear or psychic power in question creates its own permission for the affected model to make a cover save, because the main rulebook only talks about how you get cover saves from terrain or intervening units.

MikhailLenin wrote:The only said instance is Shield of Sanguinus because of the FAQ, Stormcaller as far as I know does not say that unless you can pinpoint a page in the rulebook that explains vehicles without obscured status can take cover saves.

The FAQ for Shield of Sanguinius is as follows:

Blood Angels FAQ wrote:Q: Do vehicles gain a cover save from Shield of Sanguinius?
A: Yes.

Remember that this is the FAQ portion, not the errata portion. The relevant sentence of Shield of Sanguinius is as follows:

Codex: Blood Angels p.63 wrote:The Librarian and any unit within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase.

Compare with the corresponding text in Storm Caller:

Codex: Space Wolves p37 wrote:Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

The word "units" is identical, and defined on page 3 of the main rulebook. The BA FAQ goes ahead and makes it explicit, but it didn't really need to. Still, it's useful confirmation for people who are resistant to the notion of vehicles getting cover saves by other means than being Obscured.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Gorkamorka wrote pretty much exactly what I would have.

Cannot quote the codex because that would require posting the exact rules. So I will say this: the KFF granting a 5+ cover save to all units in range is a separate sentence from the Vehicles gain the obscured status. The Obscured status is undefined(although the vehicle being a "Unit" within range also gains a 5+ cover save in addition to the default obscured status 4+ cover save).

Not true at all, for a vehicle in the Rulebook (As you have yet to give me a page where a vehicle in the rulebook can use a cover save without obscurement) a vehicle cannot use a cover save until he has the status obscured. Now the paragraph that I find really simple but yet people are confused about is the fact that a piece of wargear or power which grants obscurement in the open is a 4+ cover save value unless otherwise stated in the codex. You keep saying these two sentences are independent from each other using that very paragraph to explain the 4+ but the fact is the paragraph states you need to use the whole codex, not each separate sentence as its own rule. The fact is the paragraph in the rulebook easily explains that in the circumstance of the KFF, it grants vehicles a 5+ cover and obscurement so they can use it. Because its stated in the whole codex, each sentence is not independent in the eyes of that paragraph.

Can you honestly tell me that no where in the Ork Codex is there is a reference to a specific cover save value when it comes to Units (including vehicles) in regards to the KFF rule.